Jump to content

User talk:Polyamorph

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mathglot (talk | contribs) at 09:07, 29 January 2020 (→Seriously?: Your edit at Milky Way reverting a dummy edit had no effect on the page, other than to expose your lack of good faith.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.





Happy New Year!

Hey Polyamorph! Nice to see you back around the place. Thanks for the Christmas wishes. You know, I was thinking about you just the other day. When working on a project of mine, I discovered something, but couldn't find anything about it on the internet nor in any books. Since it has to do with glass, I thought, "Polyamorph would probably know something about this." Unfortunately, that's about as specific as I can get until this project moves past the classified stage, but perhaps I can ask you about it sometime in the future, off Wikipedia, if that's ok with you? (If you'd prefer not, that's ok too.) Aside from that, I hope you had a great Christmas holiday and a good New Year's celebration, and may the coming year bring you happiness and joy! Zaereth (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaereth: Happy New Year to you too! I'm happy to assist if I'm able to, you can contact me using the wiki e-mail function. Best wishes, Polyamorph (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Polyamorph. Sorry for the delay. I sent you an email. No hurry on the response, as it's something I'm just curious about. Thanks for any insight you may be able to provide. I hope you have a good day Zaereth (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Wade

The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
Hi. How's this for a blunder on my part: When I first drafted the brief mention for the 'In The Media' column in the upcoming issue of The Signpost, I didn't even realise that she has a Wikipedia article, and I was about to say it was time she had one. It's really nice to see someone with your professional and academic background finding time to patrol new pages - it's rare, and for 2,673 reviews this barnstar is long overdue. But let's not be too hard on Ben for his COI, Wade is so notable she would have got a Wiki page sooner or later anyway, and I would have written it myself. Thank you for all you do and keep up the good work!~~~~

Thanks for the Silver award! Polyamorph (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Loney situation

I have lately been working on expanding the List of Royal Navy admirals. One site that has tabulated a good deal of information on many admirals is www.pdavis.nl with its "William Loney R.N." database...it sets out to place in context the life of a Victorian naval surgeon by that name who I believe is related to the site maintainer. In checking out the article on an admiral linked to the list I found an actual link to "William Loney" as this admiral had directly worked with and supported the surgeon. Following the link however led to a redirect to the completely irrelevant later sportsman Willie Loney...even though the link from the admiral relating exclusively to the surgeon was the one and only link to "William Loney" on Wikipedia and therefore the only reason anyone would look for "William" would be to find the surgeon. I tried converting the redirect to a stub on the surgeon and got reverted (once more making the link from the admiral's article useless). I tried blanking the redirect to spare people taking the link from the admiral's article in order to learn about the surgeon the annoyance of being redirected to the article on the sportsman and got reverted. Now I find the link from the admiral's article has been removed and therefore NOTHING links to "William Loney". NOTHING excuses the existence of that redirect. I'll leave deletion to you. LE (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LE:, I get your point of course, but my reversion was only a matter of procedure, you cannot blank redirects. If you think the redirect should be deleted then you should instead open a discussion at WP:RFD. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a redirect that should never have existed in the first place. Now that nothing links to it I leave cleanup to others.LE (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it still works as a legitimate search term, so it has use. Polyamorph (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello Polyamorph. Thank you for helping me with the Mansun article earlier. Can you look at this article to approve that all of these bands are Britpop? Thanks. Dean12065 (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Sources Tag on Marie Royce Page

Hello Polyamorph,

I am new to editing on Wikipedia, though I've found its contents extremely helpful since I first discovered it many years ago. Since I am new, please forgive my ignorance or any mistakes I may make.

I noticed recently that there is a BLP Sources tag on the page of Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Marie Royce. From what I can glean from the Edit page, you added the tag on 2 July 2018, a few months after the page was created. After researching Wikipedia's citations and biographies of living persons policies, it appears to me that the current page is adequately sourced.

Do you have any ongoing concerns with the page? If not, would it be possible for you to remove the tag? I'm also happy to do this myself, but wanted to check with you first.


Best regards, --AccuracyAficionado (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi AccuracyAficionado, if you're satisfied the article is now well sourced then please feel free to remove the tag. Good sources are important for all wikipedia articles but more urgent for biographies of living people. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetner

Redirecting of this article disturbs interwikis. Most of labels and interwikis of D:Q626292 actually mean D:Q4368298. --Sharouser (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetener listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sweetener. Since you had some involvement with the Sweetener redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I already commented at the RfD, before you sent this. Polyamorph (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Great Blue Hill Observation Tower

As is noted in the article, it is on the National Register of Historic Places. That automatically makes it notable -- in fact, there is an effort to get all the NRHP sites onto WP:EN. We have succeeded for Milton, Massachusetts, where the tower sits, see National Register of Historic Places listings in Milton, Massachusetts, but there are gaps in many parts of the country. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, I'm not entirely sure that being listed on the NRHP makes the subject inherently notable. Where is the policy that states being on the NRHP makes the subject notable? Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I've removed the notability tag per WP:NBUILDING, despite the fact that is doesn't mention NRHP, this is clearly an historic register.Polyamorph (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the tag. Although this is WP:EN, I would not expect WP:NBUILDING to mention the NRHP specifically, just as it does not mention the UK's listed buildings or any other entries on the List of heritage registers. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milde-Biese-Aland

Hi Polyamorph, you recently reverted my modification at "Milde-Biese-Aland" (which I actually reverted again) - you are welcome to share your opinion here: Draft_talk:Milde-Biese-Aland --Cyfal (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate to the talk pages consultation

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Informality

Greetings! The page on informality was reverted. Why? Best regards, --Alexandrov98 (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You copied it word from word from here: http://www.in-formality.com/wiki/index.php?title=The_informal_view_of_the_world . This is not permitted by wikipedia policy. Polyamorph (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Polyamorph,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 21:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 04:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 02:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting albums

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think based on your redirecting Dogrel that you need to reconsider when you redirect articles, especially albums over what meets the definition of "not notable". That article clearly passes WP:NALBUMS. The reviews box located below the template has seven sources in it, with six of those passing the first criterion of NALBUMS with flying colours ("Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.") Your redirecting would not hold up at AfD. If you disagree and think it is still truly not notable, please nominate it there. Thanks. Ss112 20:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly disagree on your interpretation of WP:NALBUMS on what makes an album suitable for a standalone independent article on Wikipedia. There may well be some reliable sources cited for that album, but there is no in-depth discussion based around those sources justifying a stand-alone article. Perhaps the redirect target should be to the band, but my decision at the time was to restore the existing redirect. I have no intention of opening an AfD. Polyamorph (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my "interpretation" of WP:NALBUMS; NALBUMS does not say there needs to be in-depth discussion of sources on the article, just that there needs to be sources out there on it. Deletion discussions often also say the sources don't even need to be on the article, just exist per WP:NEXIST. Also, you might not want to go to AfD, but when someone disagrees with you redirecting an article for "failing notability" (in your opinion), then that is the next step, as you might be aware. Nobody is justified in edit warring to restore a redirect, so please don't do that on any future articles, because from your contributions it looks like you have done this occasionally. Admins will tell you when your bold redirect of a page is undone, the next stop is AfD. Also, leaving me an (automated) talk page message about "unreviewing" a page I curated. I created the redirect, not the content, and I didn't curate or do anything else to it in the first place. Ss112 05:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:NALBUMS actually says is "a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria". You have come to my talk page, not the other way around. Automated messages are the result of the NPP software. I unreviewed the page so that the page can get a second look at NPP. As far as I am concerned this is the end of the matter. There is no evidence of edit warring, please keep such accusations with zero evidence to yourself. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverted edit on Bartholin's duct

Why did you revert my edit on Bartholin's duct? The term referred not only to the current redirect, but also to the major sublingual duct. -- Uqemail (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uqemail there is no need for disambiguation here, since Bartholin's duct is one part of the Major sublingual duct. The previous appropriate redirect was therefore restored. Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bartholin's duct isn't part of it, it is the major sublingual duct (which is in the mouth under the tongue), which is completely distinct from the duct of Bartholin's gland (which is on the side of the vagina). Since the term refers to both, there should be a disambiguation. -- Uqemail (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Uqemail, apologies, I'll restore the disambiguation page. Polyamorph (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Polyamorph,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka Army Women's Corps

@P.Amorph, References have been added in Sri Lanka Army Women's Corps. Raja Kaiya Vacha (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Alo House Recovery Center

Why did you delete my article? I can't seem to contest the deletion. Can you please revert it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanedge (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) It was not your article, users do not own content posted on wikipedia. 2) I did not delete the article, I nominated it for speedy deletion as it was unambiguous advertising, which is against wikipedia policy, and an administrator (Deb) agreed and deleted it.Polyamorph (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Polyamorph,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Security Council

Dear Polyamorph

Just to let you know that I'm a history researcher looking at this event in close detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthandjusticewillprevail (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whole article removed - Ki Aikido - Why ?

Hi I updated the Ki Aikido page, to stop redirecting to Ki Society automatically, and be its own page (with links to Ki Society but also two other federations doing Ki Aikido with their own style). Why cancel the change ? Do you know the subject ?

You can find more information on ki aikido history in the article & its links, Aikido Journal, ki aikido clubs website ( ki society, ki no kenkyukai internationale association, ki federation of great britain). --AikidoWizard (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this time the article is a bit pants. Feel free to expand the article, with reference to reliable sources.Polyamorph (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you - I will add a lot more ( ki aikido history, branches, ... ) with the few secondary sources we have (Aikido Journal, Ki aikido books). --AikidoWizard (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

i want to create a page Mohammad qasim why its redirect to another person, why a person have 2 names on 1 page? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mohammad_Qasim this redirect should be removed so other have a chance to create a profile for other well known persons, why wikipedia given 2 names pages to one person??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah1440 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLP which provides the relevant policy.Polyamorph (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Deleting Redirect Page of Mohammad Qasim

Hey, i want to make request to delete a page Mohammad Qasim on WP which is redirect to another person Moulana Mohammad Qasim, i dont know why Mr. Saqib redirect it to another page and giving political benefits to that person, if u see Mr Saqib talk page he already make alot to changes and give benefits to other people and senior users removed his changes, kindly remove/delete that page Mohammad Qasim so i can make a page for another well known personalty in Pakistan so people have a chance to find more about that person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah1440 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I cannot help you, you could try to discuss your request with users at Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Polyamorph (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


thank you for your reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah1440 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bumps & Bruises

Hi Polyamorph. If you don't mind, I will revert your revert on Bumps & Bruises. I agree that this should be a redirect but it now has two valid targets. I have asked for the deletion of Bumps & Bruises (Ugly God album) so that I can move whatever interesting history is in Bumps & Bruises since it's reasonable to expect the Ugly God album to be notable after its release. The objective is to have a disambiguation on Bumps & Bruises. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pichpich:, good idea. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pichpich: I'm pretty sure that if a page has only one entry in its history, and if that entry is a redirect, then you can move a page to it overwriting the redirect - it is the one occasion where non-admin actions can appear on the deletion log. Too late now but I think that would have worked, so good to know for the furture? Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to move it and got the standard error message which isn't particularly enlightening. I think it works only if you're redirecting back to the original location (If A has been moved to B then you can move B back to A if there's no other history at A) and this wasn't the case here. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oh, ok! Shame. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Data Race

Hi, I noticed you reverted my article at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Data_race&type=revision&diff=907574013&oldid=907548822

How would you like me to change my proposed article on data races in order for it to be acceptable to you?

You said "wholly unsourced" but I cited "Adve, Sarita & Hill, Mark & Miller, Barton & H. B. Netzer, Robert. (1991). Detecting Data Races on Weak Memory Systems. ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News. 19. 234-243. 10.1109/ISCA.1991.1021616.". Do you want that citation to be more prominent? Do you want more citations?

thanks, Bayle Shanks (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is already dealt with at Race condition, so I recommend to help improve that article instead. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- i moved the text of my proposed article into the appropriate section of the Race condition page. In case you are interested, i also added my opinion that the pages should be separated to the talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_condition#Data_race_as_subsection_vs_separate_page Bayle Shanks (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you redirect History of Mechanical Engineering?

Hey, I noticed you redirected the expanded start-quality article for history of mechanical engineering, back to the shorter main page article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=History_of_mechanical_engineering&redirect=no

The article is WP:IMPERFECT but is still being worked on. - AH (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a history section in Mechanical Engineering. It was an unnecessary content fork. Polyamorph (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The history of mechanical engineering is such a large and expansive topic that the new article will likely overgrow the main article on mechanical engineering. I think there is a clear consensus in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering that this article should be created as it is on their front page labeled: To Do List, Articles Requests and also by the fact we have three members who have participated in the creation of the article. The article for History of Chemical Engineering also exists, which is in similar size to our start-quality article. - AH (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may all be true, but the article was created by copying existing content already present in Mechanical Engineering - very little isn't already covered in this existing article. If it is a work in progress then there are template notices for that, or articles are typically first developed in draft space before moving to main space when it's ready. Polyamorph (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for moving from draft space to full article was for collaboration. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Engineering has the original discussion. Just because an article using content from its main page as a start does not mean it won't be expanded on, which it already has. I will certainly put up a template notice for WIP when the article's redirection is undone. User:Andy Dingley provided a number of sources and expansions which will be used to expand the article to a great size and quality. WIP articles are allowed outside of drafts. - AH (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover granted

Hello, Polyamorph. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Bangladesh town

I keep redirecting for creating a new article which was redirected in those article. Such as Patharghata Upazila, is an subdistrict of Bangladesh. In this article "Patharghata" article was redirected, which is a town and eponymous urban centre of Patharghata Upazila. That's why i redirected the article named Patharghata Upazila to Patharghata for specifying an article for the town of Patharghata from Patharghata Upazila and for creating a new page. The same things also happened in some other page also. Because an when an article was created at Wikipedia about an District of Bangladesh and Upazila of Bangladesh, no article was created about their eponymous city or town. That's why in that time(when an article was created about an District or Subdistrict) the articles was redirected to their district or subdistrict based article. I hope understand why I keep redirecting and then removing.Great Hero32 (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your own talk page, please keep the discussion there.Polyamorph (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what did you wanted to say.But please tell me,how do I create a new article when that article is redirected to another article? Like I want to create a page of 'Patharghata' Town. But 'Patharghata' is redirected to Patharghata Upazila. Please explain this. Great Hero32 (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2019

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Polyamorph,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MintPPC

Why did you remove my link? MintPPC is since a month again an active Linux distribution and has nothing to do with Linux Mint. MintPPC uses code derived from Linux Mint but is an independent distribution for PowerPC computers(the old Apple iMac, Powerbook, iBook, G5 and so on).

Regards Jeroen Diederen - developer of MintPPC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroendiederen (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI and please do not replace wikipedia redirects with your url. Since you have a declared conflict of interest, if you want to develop an article then you will need to go through the article curation procedure.Polyamorph (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MintPPC

I don't care what you do. I just want to improve wikipedia. People searching for MintPPC will not find me otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroendiederen (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Goodbye. Polyamorph (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your patience and scruples and above-and-beyond efforts to resolve an issue on Scientists for Future! Schazjmd (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hậu Nghĩa

Hi, you redirected this page Hậu Nghĩa to the former province [1]. Please read all of the contents in that article before you decide to do so. Hậu Nghĩa is currently a township in Long An Province. It is true that the former province is also named Hậu Nghĩa. But after 1975, when Hậu Nghĩa Province was dissolve, its capital city Khiêm Cường was revert to a town in Đức Hòa District and the town is named Hậu Nghĩa, after the former province. Before there hasn't been an article about this township, so it is acceptable to redirect this name to the former province. However now I've created an article about it, so why would you revert it back to the redirect? Cn5900 (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cn5900: That wasn't obvious (to me) and the page was also unreferenced. But apologies, you have made big improvements and included a reference now. Well done and thanks for your contribution. Polyamorph (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for your understanding Cn5900 (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Participate in RfD discussion

Hi Polyamorph, I recently listed a bunch of redirects for discussion. They are in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 11 (Thạch Phúc) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 12 (Ninh Thuận, Bạc Liêu). The reason I request for deletion is because they were mistakenly created in the first place (even no sources cited, which is not acceptable and should have been deleted at that moment). For more details you can look at that discussion. Thanks a lot and have a good day. Cn5900 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Don't you think you need consensus to erase articles that others have been working on for years? And have you done other necessary work such as checking the what links here page, etc?--Bageense(disc.) 19:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what article you are referring to, but our policy and guidelines define the overriding consensus with respect to notability and sourcing. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As this apparently refers to the various Oomph! albums that the user has reverted from redirect, two of which I just returned to that state: I'd like to underscore that the requirement to meet the various notability thresholds is not a matter of consensus, except where the assessment is dubious. I don't think that assertion can be made here, in the absence of charting and/or in-depth reviews (the basic requirements for album/song articles). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Polyamorph,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 813 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Polyamorph - I am new to Wikipedia and am hoping this message gets to you. You left a message regarding my recent wikipedia pages on Tanya Marquardt and David B. Smith. You had issues with Paid editing. I am not being paid to edit, create or write these pages. I have created them voluntarily. They need additional citation however, and thanks for pointing that out. I intend to do that today. Cheers! Lilygrrl40 (Lilygrrl40 (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CUX1 page

Why did you remove the entire content of the CUX1 page? CUX1 is the official name of this gene, since many years. The content of this page was very well referenced and scholarly written. Also, why do you hide behind an anonymous name? Are you afraid of being identified? I signed, Alain Nepveu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainnepveu (talk • contribs) 22:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on this. If you want to move the page to a different name there is a procedure for this at WP:RM. The sources that you cite are all scholarly journal references, which are generally considered primary sources. Per our reliable sources content guideline WP:RS "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". I also note that many of the journal references you cited are your own, so you clearly have a WP:COI and should avoid promoting your personal research. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Meghanada

Respected Sir, Original name of character is Meghanada not Indrajit. When the person was born, he was named as "Meghanada". Just like birth certificate, birth name should be considered not the name which he/she obtains because of his victories. He obtained name Indrajit because of defeating king of Gods Indra. So let the article be on name Meghanada Thanking you Karna DV (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You performed a cut/paste move which is not allowed. Instead if you wish to move the page you must open a discussion at WP:RM. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Mouth

the album had several reviews. The first criteria is satisfied (Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.).Idraulico liquido (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see significant coverage in those sources, a paragraph at most, certainly no justification for a standalone article, redirection to the artist is sufficient IMO. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

Hi Polyamorphn, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help and advice given to me over the years. That info you sent me really helped. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Zaereth:, glad the info helped! I do indeed celebrate christmas. I hope you have had a very happy christmas too! All the best for the new decade! Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting ahead of myself

For page Prensal I removed the incorrect redirect, and I saved the page, and was then editing the page with new data (now live). You then undid my remove before I submitted the second edits. I see that I should have edited the new data in first, then removed the redirect - I was getting ahead of myself. Sorry about that. Fpr155 (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem @Fpr155:, sorry about the edit conflict! Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British peerage titles.

Usage of solely British peerage titles is a form of undue weight. When it comes to British scientists, the epitheton constans Sir is treated as almost a first name, repeated even in the same sentence. I think it should be removed in articles that are scientific in nature, and the titles merely obfuscate the subject at hand. Also, notice how non-British peers never seem to have these decorations when merely linked to. --Eykeklos Omnia (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this in wikipedia policy? WP:NCPEER suggests titles should be used in articles. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I say make it into a policy. Because then you end up with British scientist seemingly more distinguished than their counterparts from other countries, and that's simply because Great Britain has a different culture when it comes to peerage. English Wikipedia should be more international in its scope than other mutations of Wikipedia and the style should portray it. Kind regards, --Eykeklos Omnia (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?

Your recent edit at Milky Way, with the completely laughable edit summary there is no consensus for this change per 2017 RFC in archive 5, get consensus BEFORE making this change shows your complete and utter lack of good faith. Next time, why not trying looking first, to see what the change was. If you had simply performed a diff on the page first, you would have seen that that edit made no change to the article, as it was a dummy edit placed there solely to provide a link to the discussion page. Your revert had no effect on the rendered page at all, other than to expose your attitude. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polyamorph&oldid=938131991"